Gleick and America’s Dumbest Criminals

Some years ago, Daniel Butler hosted a television show called “America’s Dumbest Criminals” (trailer), entry to which Peter Gleick richly deserves.

In an interview some years later, Butler said that his favorite story was the robbers who had apparently planned the perfect gas station robbery. They took the licence plates off their van, wore ski masks. When the police arrived, they asked the attendant the usual questions, but there were no clues. Just when the police were leaving, the attendant volunteered that they’d left their phone number. In the rear window of the van, there was a For Sale sign with a phone number. The attendant had written down the phone number as the van left. The police called the phone number, inquired about buying the van, went for a test drive with the robber and drove him to the station.

Jay Leno described another incident, where the would-be bank robber demanded $40 million (milllllll-yun?). The teller said that they didn’t have that much on hand and suggested that he accept a cheque for $400,000. The robber agreed and gave the teller his name. She wrote him the agreed cheque, payment on which was stopped by the bank. When the robber tried to deposit the cheque into his own account, he was arrested.

Two Aussies achieved minor celebrity as bungling bank robbers in Colorado. They wore ski masks and goggles when they robbed a ski resort, but also wore name tags. It took the cops a mere eight minutes to identify them.

In another incident, a Tennessee policeman stopped porn starlet Barbi Cummings on a traffic violation. She then provided him with sexual favors in the back seat of the police car. The policeman took pictures of the encounter on his cell phone. He then emailed Miss Cummings and asked her to post the picture on her website so that he could prove the encounter to his pals. Miss Cummings reported that she still had to pay the traffic ticket as the cop had already called in the offence.

All of these felons were dumb, but they were all convicted and served time.

The newest candidate for the hallowed ranks of America’s Dumbest Criminals is Peter Gleick, MacArthur Genius. Gleick, who fancied himself the scourge of climate skeptics and imagined that Heartland’s climate program was funded by fossil fuel corporations and the Koch brothers, has admitted that he managed to trick a Heartland administrator and obtain confidential financial information by impersonating a Heartland director, an act that appears to contain all the elements of fraud. But the actual documents didn’t show that Gleick was feared by Heartland. Nor was even he mentioned. Nor did the documents show that Heartland’s climate program was funded by fossil fuel corporations or the Koch brothers.

Gleick is alleged to have forged a document that places Gleick as Heartland’s nemesis, a document that resulted him in garnering the recognition and praise from Andy Revkin and others that he apparently desired.

The forged document read like an epistle from Dr Evil. (Megan McArdle of the Atlantic used the phrase “secret villain lair”). And like the famous scene where Dr Evil’s henchmen are dumbfounded by Dr Evil’s plan to extort a mere “milllll-yun” dollars for not destroying the world, one can picture the supposed Heartland henchmen in consternation at Dr Evil’s proposed Confidential Strategy against [long Dr Evil pause ….] Peter Gleiiiiiick. #2, #3 and the rest must have been scratching their heads. Not Al Gore. Not James Hansen. Not even the Climategaters. Peeeeeeeter Gleiiiiiiick.

And like Leno’s bank robber and the snowboarding Aussies, Gleick was identified almost immediately. Within hours of the so-called Confidential Strategy being announced as a fake, Steve Mosher proposed Gleick as its author. In addition to Gleick being painted into the picture, parts of the document were written in Gleick’s own distinctive style – with distinctive word choices and punctuation. With the scan even saved in Pacific time zone.

Gleick has thus far confessed only to obtaining actual documents through impersonation (though he has not yet been charged with wire fraud), but has claimed innocence on the forgery allegation. Some of this defenders claim that he was set up. By an evil genius who had put Gleick’s name in the forged document and written portions in Gleick’s distinctive style. Possibly by Dr Evil himself (who was unavailable for comment.)

Even if this part of Gleick’s impossible story were true (and the evidence against it is overwhelming), it would not prevent his entry into the hallowed halls of America’s Dumbest Criminals, in which he has surely garnered a place of particular honor. MacArthur Genius and America’s Dumbest Criminal.

Climate ‘s’cience is ridden with Magical Thinking.
Unshared data is manipulated to conform to the thesis of CAGW.
Every outcome and eventuality is confirmation of CAGW and nothing,
I repeat nothing can challenge or disprove the thesis.
Given this infantile mindset it is hardly surprising that when
Climategate provided such a perfect rod to beat the Climategang with…
that they should yearn for a similar tool!
When no such device came to hand it seems perfectly natural that
they should attempt to invent one!
The self aggrandizing, deceptive Mr Glieck is a poster child for the
whole CAGW movement!

One of the “interesting” aspects is Gleick’s claim that the forged document was snail mailed to him. Sherlock Mosher has already pointed out and it bears repeating that if this were the case, then the creases that are created when a document is folded would be in evidence on the scanned version. I scan documents almost every day and this is a common means whereby at a glance that I can tell whether or not an invoice for example was mailed to me when I look back on it years later.

It really depends on the scanner (default settings). I scan a lot of documents on different equipment and I would say 1 of 4 scanners don’t show a fold by default. In this case, because shadows are visible in edges of the document, a fold should be visible.

Remember “mail” can mean anything and he may have left that deliberately vague as a distraction. Of course more and more it is looking like he created it himself, but in his carefully worded “confession” it could mean:

If this represents what the average climate scientist brings to the debate and after reading most of the climate gate communications that certainly would seem to have some credence is there any wonder that we’re winning?

Steve: please do not assume that I am trying to “win” the same thing that you are.

Unbelievably, when I played this video about the tree robber, it was preceded by a paid advertisement smearing Heartland as trying to spread “anti-science” propaganda in schools. Since the strategy memo is a fake, this is out and out Libel. More defendants…. and with enough money to pay for an ad.

I wonder what proportion of climate scientists have the same propensity of cops in training?

In theory the scientific method should train that tendency out of you but it is clear that in this case it did not.
Steve: “noble cause corruption” is a topic that was much in the air in the early stages of Climategate. Mosher and Fuller discuss it in their book – which bears re-reading. At the time, I had noticed an article in a newspaper (L.A. Times, I think, but not related to Climategate, some time earlier) that passim mentioned scratch-my-back academic peer reviews as a form of petty corruption that no one bothers about, but petty corruption nonetheless. I’ve looked for this article subsequently but haven’t been able to find it or a similar reference/

“noble cause corruption” was first suggested by Steve McIntyre to me.
In the early days of climategate we talked regularly trying to make sense
of this question “WHAT WERE THEY THINKING FER CRISSSAKE?”

Steve called me one day and suggested “noble cause corruption” That worked for me as a metaphor. Also, I’ve extended that to talk about the thin green line.

There is a line that people are not allowed to cross. The science is right,
but you cant say that Mann made mistakes. You cant say mucking about with FOIA is bad. You are FORCED to defend Gleick.

At some point radically independent people inside the climate science bunker will look around and get sick of the silence of the Lambs. Judith Curry is one of them. They step across the thin green line.. and the reaction to them from the inside is utterly out of proportion.

Could there be a cause more noble (err Nobel) than saving the planet? Could anything be more ‘evil’ than trying to impede the noble efforts of those saving the planet?

And of course, there’s the politics. Who was it in the climategate e-mails who wrote in 2003 (?) that America had been taken over by fascists? There’s a hubris daily double for self-esteem — the nobility of knowing one is battling climate deniers who are also fascists!

And if these anti-climate, right-wing facists are also funded by evil corporate interests (especially of the fossil fuel variety)? Oh my, the self-congratulation and self regard they felt surely must have reached levels rarely known by mere mortals.

The likes of Gleick and Jones are unbelievable. Imagine sending “delete all….” emails with FOI mentioned in the subject, or naming yourself in such an obvious forged document. Imagine risking being exposed as having no ethics while heading an “ethics task force”. You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried. What next?

So Steve I thought the title and protection lasted for life. Newt Gingrich is still called ‘Speaker’, Clinton and Bush Father/son are still former called ‘President’. I thought that if you had served a term in the Senate, then your title was Senator for life, and the person enjoyed the same legal protection.
Steve: maybe the honorific, but not the offence. read the statute.

You can be called Senator, but in fact Newt Gingrich should not be called Speaker as the debate moderators are doing, not should either Bush or Clinton be called President. The diplomatic protocol manuals say that you get to keep the title only if your position is one of many.

I still think of the Bugs Bunny cartoon where Wile E. Coyote is pitted against the wascally wabbit. I’d like to think when Gleick was a kid, he watched the toon and wanted a business card like this one:

I still go w/ Mosh’s take – humiliation & revenge. Drunks are often loose-tongued & rash, but it takes the slow burn of humiliation to sustain an effort of this magnitude. Too, a large dollop of paranoid certainty – that there just had to be major funding by the Evil Energy Cartel, or the Koch Bros, etc – probably helped to keep the boiler stoked.

The actual “sting” was bumbling & amateurish, but that’s a different can of worms.

Pitiful. I can easily imagine that PaddikJ & Mosher are exactly right in their analysis of Gleick because it rings familiar — I’ve been down that road, a few exits, anyway, and if I never followed it into the desert or over a cliff, it is at least in part because I’m not surrounded by people who share my delusions.

@bw It might be helpful to actually watch the video, which is a clip from “Operation Rabbit” that pitted Wile. E Coyote against Bugs Bunny.

Bugs as usual, comes out on top.

From Wikipedia’s page of Wile E. Coyote cartoons:

The Coyote appears separately as an occasional antagonist of Bugs Bunny in five shorts from 1952 to 1963: Operation: Rabbit, To Hare Is Human, Rabbit’s Feat, Compressed Hare, and Hare-Breadth Hurry. While he is generally silent in the Coyote-Road Runner shorts, he speaks with a refined accent in these solo outings (except for Hare-Breadth Hurry), introducing himself as “Wile E. Coyote — super genius”, voiced with an upper-class, cultured English accent by Mel Blanc.

1st Law: Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.

2nd Law: The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.

3rd Law: A stupid person is a person who caused losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

4th Law: Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that (at all times and places and under any circumstances) to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.

“I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent — their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy — they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent — he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.”
–Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord

Pretty categorical. I know you go on to offer that perhaps he didn’t at the end of the post, but I think we’re still waiting for evidence, so I’m surprised that you are this categorical. Maybe you have some additional information we don’t have yet? Is another shoe about to drop?
Steve- edited slightly.

Paleontologist/author discussed scientific theories and truth could be paraphrased thusly: A scientific theory is held to be true when to hold otherwise would be perverse. In this case, the weight of evidence is sufficient that I think we can take this one as certain. You can argue otherwise, but you need to willfully ignore the evidence to do so.

My 1950’s third edition of the Shorter OED has “gleek” rather than “gleke.” It offers “A jibe, jest, gird – 1819,” a coquettish glance – 1623,” “to trick, circumvent – 1653″ and “to make a jest or jibe (at a person) – 1687.” In this case, the joke seems to be on Gleick.

Gleek was also a name for a game of cards in 1533.

Coincidentally, yesterday’s Weekend Australian editorial used the medieval “cloke” rather than “cloak” for concealment. Gleick has failed to adequately cloke his gleke.

LAKELY:
I pray thee, gentle Peter, speak to us:
Our ears are much enamoured of debate
So is my heart inclined to this shape
And for fair hearing's force perforce we'd move you
On the next show to say how fair we'd treat thee
PETER:
Methinks, Heartland, you should have little reason
for that, and yet won't say the truth: Heartland
and truth keep little company togetehr now-a-days; the
more the pity that your list of donors will not
see the light.
(Nay, but I can Gleick them in some fashion)
LAKELY:
Thou are wise if thou would reconsider.
PETER:
Not so, never.
(But if I have wit enough to get out
your own docs, I'll have enouugh to serve my own turn.)
LAKELY:
Out of this offer do not desire to go:
Thou should entrain us, whether thou wilt or no.
We're a foundation of no common rate
And knowledge of all stripe would fill our plate.
And we would hear thee, therefore come and see
Go talk to Denning who preceded thee
And he did fetch reception from our keep
And fine debate he pressed with no lost sleep
And I will promise that no harshness go
For we live on a lively to-and-fro!
PETER (donning disguise like an ass):
I pray you, amend me to your board emails, your
minutes, and your donor list, your plans. Good
Mister Staffperson, I shall desire you of more
acquaintance too. The docs, I beseech you, sir!

An excellent prose-jack, thank you. It shows us that even if we think we have moved on, we think we are wiser, slicker, whatever; when caught up in the game of life, and we forget that it is the great game, we are always experts at tripping ourselves up. I bet Sherlock Mosher has a more succinct phrase for it though….

But like all actions, whether we laugh or howl in rage about them, the fallout is larger, and indirectly more harmful to those innocent of the plot….

Ah, Gabriel & Steele at RailsConf. Now you’re talking. They were trying to expand the young guns’ ideas of what a programming language might look like. They did for me. An even better talk was Steele’s Growing a Language at OOPSLA in 1998. I defy anone with an analytical bent not to enjoy that.

It’s not just Gleick in the memo. He also describes his allies in glowing terms (“communicators”). Nominal allies who he has clashed with, in less than glowing terms. And of course Heartland as evil incarnate. That’s all his PoV. It’s almost like he’s lacking theory of mind.

The phishing emails are however chilling clever. He puts in enough tricks to make them convincing like saying he’ll update the schedule when in the office. I can’t help wondering how he did that part so well.

Yes Copner, after reading Gleick’s emails to HI, one would consider this is something that he has done before. He is very comfortable with lying, it takes years of practice I guess.
snip – unrelated editorializing

I’ve long thought they way we measure ‘smart’ isn’t really right. Not to say that emotionless logical thinking has no value, just it isn’t computationally hard. It is hard for us because of the way our brain is wired, but it isn’t a complex task compared to say, empathy. Eg: http://blog.debreuil.com/?p=207

So the idea that Gleick is really smart and does something really stupid is pretty normal. Shocking and pathetic when it falls in the ethics sphere, rather than the more usual being an introvert or forgetting your glasses on your head, but still normal enough I think. Not sure I’d call him ‘stupid’, in spite of him doing very stupid things.

Steve: I didn’t say that Gleick was “stupid”. I said that he qualified for acceptance into the ranks of America’s Dumbest Criminals – a point that seems self-evident.

Apologies – I read the article and then comments before posting, and didn’t delineate that in my comment. No arguments on being qualified for the show, I’d even throw in a Career Darwin Award if there is such a thing.

Lol Robin…I was going to make some comment about the MacArthur Genius award winner having a special category established in his honor by the folks that hand out the Darwin Awards…

It would be rather fitting I would think…Darwin Awards present the ‘Peter Gleick Award for Career Extinction.’ Presented annually to those that go above and beyond the call of duty, while destroying any hope of future employment.

It could be like the Heisman or Lombardi Trophies…

Nah…make it more like Lord Stanley’s Cup…but instead it could be a broken hockey stick that the winner must carry around for a year…

The most successful criminals are either raised in the craft or spend a long time learning it. Gleick didn’t have that advantage. He impulsively got into something for which he clearly had no training or aptitude.

“By whatever means necessary,” is a bad rationale for the commission of a crime.

Ask James Randi or Penn and Teller or any other great conjurer and they’ll tell you that the highly intelligent can be amongst the most gullible and easily fooled by simple trickery.

Peter Gleick was outed by his own egotism and lack of self-awareness. He may well have implicated others as accomplices both before and after the fact.

Oh and yes, Gleick forged the document. He put himself center stage as the superhero facing down the Dark Enemy that is the Heartland Institute. He’s given HI enormous publicity boost and ruined his own career.

What a pity: I had hoped it was pronounced Glaick. I could then have introduced you to this fine, old Scots word: “Urban Dictionary: glaikit
Scottish word meaning: stupid, foolish, not very bright, thoughtless, vacant.

As does Mike McPhadden, the president of the AGU, in this one yesterday. McPhadden’s worked with Gleick – albeit briefly – in his Ethics Committee role. The BBC presenter and Bob Ward follow suit, the presenter rightly saying that many still view Gleick as a hero. This page will have its uses in that regard.

For Peter Gleick to have been the master forger makes better sense than the alternative that Glieck himself claims.

– Gleick is identified by the style, so the anonymous forger knew how to both mimic him AND get Gleick’s attention by giving him a prominent place in the fake document.
– A person of Gleick’s intelligence would have the document for 30 days, without checking that it was not in the Heartland Style, nor making sure that the facts accurately matched the genuine article.
– This master forger was able to clever enough get spot-on Gleick’s style and opinions, (and convince many other sources of the document’s authenticity) but was not bright enough to realise that the “Heartland” house-style was very different to Gleick.

This does not add up, unless the anonymous forger has it in for Gleick, knows exactly how he “ticks” and does not care for the possible collateral damage to reputations on both side of the climate change / global warming issue. Now that would be a real Dr Evil whose path I would not like to cross!

It reveals, once again, that all humans, including those who happened to be trained in some field of science, are human; that is they are all political and economic animals prone to groupthink, with all the potential human failings, varying with the individual.

Thus the usual AGW line about what ‘the science’ says or the old ‘97% agree’ canard, which imagines scientists to be some separate objective and apolitical species, is always a naive oversimplification and is absurd in any field with significant political implications.

In my experience, the higher the political stakes for any ‘scientific’ finding, the more one needs to look very carefully at the science and scientists involved.

Next up – the Great Biodiversity Crisis, supported by the pseudoscience called ‘Conservation Biology.’ You know, the ‘science’ that saw polar bear extinction for their AGW partners.

Normally, I’d agree but I think it is reprehensible that some of Gleick’s peer group are celebrating the man as a hero for exposing well, I don’t know. Precisely what did he expose that is worthy of such hero worship? Surely anybody who has been following the issue knows that HI is a think-tank that does not support the consensus reports.

What they do is no secret. How they manage to fund what they do is essentially only the business of their board and their funders. If the argument is that HI should not be entitled to non-profit status by virtue of promoting their institutional convictions, then it would follow that a whole lot of other groups should also be de-listed. HI is certainly not unique in that respect.

Gleick is not a hero. He is a pitiful petty-thief who appears to be driven by his own need to find personal import in his role as eco-warring climate scientist.

Heroes are gracious in their dealings with adversaries. What he did was a graceless act. Particularly so as it served no purpose of any real value. The true hero would have accepted HI’s invitation to speak at their upcoming event in an attempt to present his case. Instead Peter Gleick, the non-hero, refused to entertain any notion of wading into enemy territory and instead lashed out in frustration by committing a stupid criminal pet-trick – not unlike the petulant toddler who screams at the top of his lungs when denied a piece of candy in the grocery store.

Since Gleick and his friends do not seem to have any ability to understand that their incessant irrational shrieking is but one of the reasons many thinking people are turned off by their attempts to act as ‘communicators’ of the science, I do not think that humour or ridicule is unwarranted.

Perhaps, though highly unlikely given the level of zealotry displayed, some clearer thinkers will understand how ridiculous they have become in the wake of Gleick’s actions.

I realize Steve did say that before, and I recognize the point being made. I disagree with the thought somewhat. Gleick has been no help to rational climate science for years. Heartland, as much as I might agree with them on this topic, also has been quite biased at times. Mutual self-destruction of an activist scientist and a political action group is something I find highly entertaining.

According to authorities, a bomb exploded in the Bangkok house where Moradi and two other Iranians had been staying. After the blast, Moradi attempted to hail a cab. When the driver refused to pick him up, he allegedly threw a bomb, injuring four bystanders.

When police approached, Moradi allegedly threw another bomb, but lost both of his legs when it bounced back and exploded near him, according to Thai authorities. He was arrested following the incident and remains in custody in Thailand.

I had assumed that this whole thing must have been a Dan Rather episode, with someone feeding Gleick the fake memo or at least the makings of it.

That assumption was based on another assumption – that Gleick could not have been ‘stupid’ enough to do this on his own.

Now that I am learning more about Gleick, his ego and zealousness, I am starting to realize how much I had underestimated Gleick’s potential for irrational and desperate and, yes, stupid acts.

I suspect hubris and years of getting away with fabricating AGW story lines may have also played a large part in this. After all, look how much the AGW gang has got away with so far, even when their fabrications have been revealed (e.g. Mann and Hansen roll on…).

I suspect that someone who receives a “Genius” award for being slightly clever and, more importantly, having the correct politics is doomed to end in this way. Decades of fawning from ignorant media types must inflate ego and dull critical thinking.

You never know, Icarus might have laid eyes on the genuine fake document. Hmmm….you don’t think he might have it in his possession do you? Perhaps you could get him to email it to you by some clever subterfuge…?

Individuals can make mistakes. Harrison Schmitt made a mistake about Arctic sea ice having recovered in 2009 to 1989 levels (among many other fundamental mistakes) and he refused to correct it when his error was pointed out to him privately. I cannnot speculate on his motivations. But of much greater concern in this episode is the role of the Heartland Institute, which has long tried to piggyback on Schmitt’s reputation and history of public service. Heartland has established itself as a coordinator of climate denial efforts, as a publisher of a discredited pseudo-scientific attack on climate science called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and as organizer of a conference that brings together groups and individuals that work against the science and policy of climate change. Their irresponsible actions in this cherry-picking exercise substantially diminish even further Heartland’s claim to be any kind of honest broker of serious scientific skepticism on the topic of climate change.
Steve: Heartland doesn’t speak for me. Like any other organization, they will doubtless seek to take advantage of the situation, whether they are deserving or not. If climate scientists feel threatened by small events like the NIPCC or the Heartland conference, they need to do a better job, rather than blame these events.

Mike,
I noticed that you have now posted this exact word-for-word sentiment at three blogs, starting with Think Progress. Why does this not come as a surprise?
Is your middle initial “E?” Does your last name start with an “M?” Does it end with “nn?”

And obviously the right ones! They have allowed me to shed my cloak of mugwumpery and to realize that there are many, more highly qualified, thought provoking, less ideologically driven – and dare I say more intellectually honest – individuals residing there than ever warmed the bench for the Hockey Team.

I agree with Salamano, above: This has easily crossed the line where it seems even Steve is taking “satisfaction in these events”. Gleick’s actions were reprehensible, possibly even criminal. But piling on in this way doesn’t makie anyone look good. I expect better from Climate Audit.

Yes indeed, it was an exchange between Gandalf and Frodo in the mines of Moria.

Frodo – It’s a pity Bilbo did not stab the vile creature (Gollum) when he had the chance.

Gandalf – Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo’s hand.

Like Gollum, this fellow Gleik may be temporarily neutralized, but he’s still enslaved by the ring, and is at the root unrepentant. Perhaps, like Gollum, he will end up doing some good that he did not intend.

John, if Gleick hadn’t been sitting on his horse while tirelessly scolding the ‘deniers’ about ethics you might have a leg to stand on. Instead, seeing the calvary closing in, he chooses to brazen it out with a monumental display of arrogance and hypocrisy, blaming others for his behavior even as he continues to lie about the extent of his crime.

You can disagree, but IMO Gleick deserves what he’s getting on this forum and much worse.

Re: John Bennett (Feb 25 17:03),
unfortunately, Gleick has not, in my opinion, provided a full confession and is being portrayed as a hero in many locations. I think that the situation warrants satire.

It is interesting to ponder what the climatological response to all this will be.

Climatologists will be increasingly asked what they think of Gleick’s actions. Some (like Gavin) will be moved to say ‘not good’ and some will say ‘good’. Clearly this level of dissonance will be undesirable for the cause.

However, climatologists never have to answer questions about Pachauri.

So where better to promote/hide Gleick than the IPCC?

This could turn out to be Gleick’s supreme career move – easily justifying the Genius Award.

I predict that Gleick will be elevated to the role of IPCC chairman or co-chair (It would be a shame to lose Pachauri’s creative writing platform).

However, it should be pointed out that this is not a falsifiable prediction. This is simply a possible future scenario from an ensemble of possible futures which may be used to terrify school children, should this seem appropriate, in order to generate grant funding.

What I find rather remarkable is that Gleick is apparently unable to write from a perspective different than his own. His supporters, one and all, have fallen into the same trap. Is this the same inability to see multiple perspectives that prevents them from seeing all of the peer reviewed science piling up that disputes CAGW? They only accept the science that supports their view, anything else is according to them, anti-science. Hmm.

As a case study this is quite fascinating. How could someone of his obvious intelligence do such a clumsy forgery job. His arrogance led him to put his own name in the document. He elevates Forbes blogs, himself, he denigrates Judith Curry and Revkin by implying they could be swayed or perhaps bought.

Well, I’m not so sure there is obvious intelligence there. He seemed to be a figurehead, for the most part. I like the way he went from being a high-profile climate scientist to being a humble hydrologist, or whatever. Most amusing.

Not so sure about that. Damn hard for anyone in Big Climate to upstage the original EAU Climategate emails hitting the fan, but pompous Pete has sure given them a bloody good run for the Pacific Institute’s money. Someone should enlighten them all that when we profess to be all for the free market of ideas and competition, that’s not exactly where we’re coming from chaps.

I’ve been struck by the fact that all of these climate zealots write poorly – Gleick, Hansen (especially) and Mann are good examples. Everything they write is loaded with cliche (both words and ideas), awkward phrasing, and wild hyperbole. It betrays the fact that they have become propagandists rather than scientists.

There are many scientists convinced that AGW is a real problem based upon the persistent reported findings of so-called climatologists, such as Hansen and Gleik. However some of the more objective and highly credentialed, Dr. Judith Curry eg, became quite concerned after Climategate. They had no trouble at all discerning the real import of the emails. And knew well that they so-called validation by the academic committees that were convened to review climategate engaged in a cover up. With the likes of Gleik concern has now morphed into something close to skepticism. To paraphrase Dr Curry, these climatologist use politics to drive their science, and science to justify their politics. Dr. Curry is by no means alone. Scientists, particularly in fields such as astrophysics, geology, botany, and archeology have been afraid to voice skepticism or at least data correction and interpretation lest they be punished by the media, the government, academia, and peer review panels. This is beginning to change. I suspect some editors will soon be replaced in scientific periodicals that engaged in censorship, alarmism, and the publication of AGW pieces that were simply absurd.

A motorist has a flat tire outside of an insane asylum. He jacks the vehicle up takes off the lug nuts, puts them into the hubcap
and removes the tire. While doing this he steps on the edge of the hubcap and it jumps into the air spilling all the lug nuts into
a rainwater drain. The motorist then scratches his head wondering how he is going to mount the spare with no wheel lugs.

Observing this from behind a secure fence is an inmate of the asylum. He says to the motorist “all you have to do is to take one lug off
of each of the other wheels and use them to mount your spare”. The motorists says “Hey that’s a good idea, how come your in the insane
asylum?” The inmate answers “I’m in here because I am crazy not because I’m stupid”.

Gleick has thus far confessed only to the crime of fraudulently obtaining actual documents (though he has not been charged yet), but has claimed innocence on the forgery. He claims that he was set up. … [emphasis added -hro]

“He claims he was set up”?! Steve, are you serious … or were you using “humourous licence”?!

I think it’s more sad than funny though. Maybe a better analogy than ‘America’s Dumbest Criminals’ is the movie,’The Life of David Gale’. It’s a story about people that are so obsessed, so consumed by their ideology that they become something even worse than the thing they hate.

Don’t worry, because: “In a brief letter on Friday evening, Gleick asked the board of directors of the Pacific Institute to grant him a “temporary short-term leave of absence”, while it investigated his use of deception to obtain sensitive documents from Heartland, which he then leaked to the press.”.

After the ridiculous UEA self investigations, this path might also be the dumbest self defence.

What I find discouraging is Gleick corrupting the ethics process to silence if not condemn his opposition. How often and in what others settings are ethics discussions abused? We know about Congressional abuse, what about these other instituions? If not ethics, how about promotions?

It’s curious how Wegman, who made the author-in-a-hurry mistake of insufficient footnotes and credits, was singled out for approbation (and the press reports this to diminish the import and truth in his report and testimony’s findings. Granted, they did the same to Einstein in his day).

To say nothing of IRS questionable targeting of conservative non-profit groups (over “take one from both piles” allocations – given we’re always seeing polls that rescale assuming large leftist majorities).

Re: MacArthur. Like a lot of foundations their founder would not recognize it today. He should have chosen more wisely.

“Two Aussies achieved minor celebrity as bungling bank robbers in Colorado. They wore ski masks and goggles when they robbed a ski resort, but also wore name tags. It took the cops a mere eight minutes to identify them”

Actually they were identified by their accent. They were already known and liked by the townsfolk. How many other young male Australians could there be in a small snow town?

Karl Popper on noble cause corruption, a free translation from ‘Open Society and its Enemies:’

‘Gee,if we can only get the right leaders, up there, and keep everyone else in their place, down there, (Plato speaking,) (in Greek,) we can recreate that Golden Age, before the rot set in. But we need real intellectuals, (like me),well shamans really, to pierce behind the flux, no one else can do it.’

And Plato was verygood at spin, he puts his words in Socrates mouth:

‘Hmm, Socrates was a democratic guy, the mob will think I’m advocating freedom. Sometimes the noble lie, a bit of forgery, is OK if it means getting rid of that damned flux.’

So you see, Gleick et al are only getting things back in order, (Stupid,) bringing you back to the Golden Age, (Stupid,) putting the right shaman, er leaders in place,(Stupid.)

Seeing Xena occupying an oil rig today, reminded me of thoughts I’ve had that these guys really see themselves as their comic book heroes from their childhood, I find them as funny as “The Big Bang Theory” guys. Like the Justice League, Scott Mandia as Superman, Gliek as Aquaman ………….
DAS

“You know how sometimes you get upset that the people policing your neighborhood are a bunch of fat donut critics who spend most of their time trying to trick you into speeding tickets? It could be worse. They could be Aquaman. Imagine being in a burning building, and the person sent to rescue you shows up in his underwear on a giant seahorse. Or worse, standing on two flying fish with leashes (above right). But don’t worry, while you’re burning alive, your rescuer has the fantastic ability to TALK with those fish he’s using as shoes. You might as well cover yourself in gasoline and try to get it over with quick.”

Gleickenspiel: a statement / blog / initiative that
* claims the moral high ground,
* gains acceptance by the establishment
* pre-emptively accuses its accusers of corruption…
* which the establishment believes because it is plausible…
* and it’s plausible because it’s written by experts…

The whole idea that he was set up would make more sense if he truly were a high profile climate scientist. I’ve been reading this blog along with WUWT and Lucia’s Blackboard for YEARS and I wasn’t familiar with him until now.

High profile? Not hardly.

If Peter Gleick didn’t write it then someone else did a masterful job of imitating his style in the hopes of what? Getting him to “leak” it so it could be outed as a fake? Really?

We’ve got it all wrong. What Gleick did is not criminal not even unethical. You see, Gleick is a scientist. What he did is just a “trick” to “hide the decline”, which as any scientist knows, is just a reference to a special mathematical or logical algorithm used to get a desired result. I just hope Gleick can handle the debug dump on this one.

Surely, if the document was mailed to him, the real perpetrator will come forward to help Gleick in his time of trouble ? No ? Otherwise it will have to be presumed that he is the author and recipient of said document.

Gleick was invited by Heartland as a speaker for the “entertainment” portion of their event. He took this as disrespectful treatment (of a genius) and responded to Bast by declining the invite and calling them out on using him as “entertainment”. Bast replied, clarifying what they meant but the damage was done and the genius was already at work devising his revenge.

‘he has surely garnered a place of particular honor. MacArthur Genius and America’s Dumbest Criminal.’

I’m almost starting to feel sorry for this dumb schmuck! But it’s the hysteria one has to watch! Every time they cry “Hero!” ( a brave knight who ‘ventured’ into the evil iniquity that is the Mordor of The Heartland Institute – in fact, I think all they read is Tolkien!), don’t they know how ‘dumb’, how much like louts egging on some poor sap, they become? Or are they really that stupid!? Surely not?

The stupid was strong with him. You just have to shake your head at how he truly lost perspective on things. It was like Hitler in his bunker imagining division destroying the oncoming Soviet Army. But instead it was Gleick imagining himself destroying the evil minions of skeptivism.

There must be a Shakespearean or parallel in history where a man completely, self-inflicted, destroys himself in front of a huge audience.

I can’t believe no one mentioned the 3 stooges yet. They always had a brilliant idea, with hilarious result (though not funny for them). Roadrunner was an impossible target, this is much more like the stooges.

Yes, German or Dutch I’m guessing, but I’ve seen several youtube videos where he was introduced and also heard Judith Curry say it and it’s pronounced either Gleck or Glick or something in between. I initially pronounced it the way you say it should be pronounced because I studied German way back when.

I doubt it was money. More likely it was his growing sense of self-importance- Gleick clearly believed that he deserved to be at the center of the debate. In his mind it was not so unrealistic for his column at Forbes and he himself to feature prominently in the forged document.

I suspect that it is his lingering doubt about his true position in the firmament of climate debate that is the source of his real frustration, not his “frustration with the ongoing efforts …to attack climate science and scientists and prevent [ ] debate.”

Thomas Sowell: Brilliance–even genius–is no guarantee that consequential factors have not been left out or misconceived. Intelligence minus judgment equals intellect. Wisdom is the rarest quality of all–the ability to combine intellect, knowledge, experience, and judgment in a way to produce a coherent understanding…Wisdom requires self-discipline and an understanding of the realities of the world, including the limitations of one’s own experience and of reason itself. The opposite of high intellect is dullness or slowness, but the opposite of wisdom is foolishness, which is far more dangerous.

I wouldn’t be surprises that there are many doctors looking at this as it unfolds. Psychiatrists are probably working on a “Gleick Syndrome” and are diving into patients’ past to see if they were bullied or ridiculed. Having your underwear pulled up to your armpits when you are a kid can leave deep scars especially if you are a genius. This may lead someone to harass or bully others when they are finally in a position of power.
In the hands of a gifted therapist the patient may learn to control this anger and go on to be a well respected member of the community.
Or not!

Not all criminals are the same. A friend of mine told that many years ago he was not very rich and went in the weekend to the supermarket with all the money he had, a twenty-five guilders note. But half-way in a small alley he was arrested by a thief who threatened him with a gun and wanted all his money. My friend explained to him how poor he was and next they started to negotiate. They came out on fifty-fifty. He gave his note and the thief returned to him twelve guilders and fifty cents.

Lest they get the impression that this might have been a lengthy exchange, I think you owe it to your audience to explain that one bill (a ten) and one coin (a rijksdaalder = 2 1/2 guilders) would have done it. ;-)

True story: Years ago as an assistant district attorney I was interviewing a witness in a robbery case, a kind of tough, but nice older lady, who worked in an ice cream store in a small town in our county. One afternoon she was working by herself when a young man walked in the store and announced, “This is a holdup! Give me all the money.”

She looked him over carefully and asked, “Where is your gun?” He seemed confused for a second and then responded, “I’ve got one in the car.” “Well,” she said, “you better go get it.”

He said, “Okay,” and left, never to return, but was caught soon thereafter.

When she told me what she had said, I practically fell off my chair laughing.

I mean this is how absurd it’s become! It isn’t a ‘football match’. One of the great coaches of a UK football team, Bob Paisley, once said that “Football is not bigger than life, it’s more important than that!” And for him that was true! I think this debate attracts the most stupid of people, as well as the most profound. I find it so absurd that one must ‘mix’ with what is stupid! Hence, I try not to comment.

Climate Audit has long-term “residents” who are partial to just about every imaginable color in the political spectrum. That’s one reason it is a forbidden topic. Because of that, we are all able to better focus on the real topic at hand… and discover new friends as well.:)

Let us assume that people are not Peter Gleick! Let us assume, for the sake of our own sanity, if nothing else, that people are rational and have, what they used to call, bona voluntas. This hysteria has become infectious and has infected everyone. Please, let us examine ourselves and avoid schadenfreude and examine what needs to be examined.

Interesting tid bit. I commented the following at Scott’s Lex Luther post.

I knew a guy named Pretexting Pete
Who used to steal gamble and cheat
He thought he was the smartest guy in town
But I found out last Monday
That Pete got locked up Sunday
They’ve got him in the jailhouse way down town
He’s in the jailhouse now. He’s in the jailhouse now.
I told him once or twice quit fakin’ names and spreadin’ lies
He’s in the jailhouse now

yo de le he ho le he
yo de le he ho le hoo
yo de le he ho yo de le he ho
yo de le he

Scott took down that post, altered my second one,
and he has instituted the blog ban, in the style of Joe Romm.

I’m afraid that this kind of threads, however needed by the oppressed ‘climate realists’ will have an adverse effect on getting back to normal.

Sure, the actions of the alarmist community have been very accurately described by Irving Janis (Groupthink), Stanley Cohen (moral panic and folk devils,) and Thomas Kuhn, (the structure of scientific revolutions), considering the tenacity to hold on to falsified hypotheses. But that doesn’t mean that we should react in kind and create folk devils in return. That would confirm their view of their opponents. One sure way to spiral hostilities out of control

If we think we are objective, by using the scientific methods, rather than ideologic dogma, then we should also act as such. Objective. We should recognize that alarmism is nothing but the inability to outgrow basic instincts, like herd instinct, clan forming, and establishing a pecking order by showing how brave we can fight the enemy.

Do we want to be like that? This thread suggests so, just as primitively hostile. I propose that we see the alarmists as good people with some primitive distorted world view. And what we should do is, ignore their hostilities and patiently and kindly guide them.

Andre, I will turn the other cheek when they stop forcibly taking my money (via taxes) and mandating how I choose to live (via laws) in support of their delusions.

I agree that demonising individuals is distasteful, but ignoring wrongdoing (which includes Gleick’s own demonising of individuals like Donna Laframboise) is not going to get these people out of our pockets and off our backs.

I hate to dampen the fun, but does everyone know how he actually pronounces his name? It’s pronounced somewhere between “Gleck” and “Glick” depending on who is introducing him as the speaker at an event. It is not, unfortunately for this thread and the “Bottom” thread, “Gleek.”

The problem of course is that when a dumba** is wrong, everyone ignores him, but when a genius is wrong, he sounds so convincing. Paul Erhlich has never admitted his “population bomb” book was wrong or dangerous.

Like one that draws the model of a house
Beyond his power to build it; who, half through,
Gives o’er and leaves his part-created cost
A naked subject to the weeping clouds
And waste for churlish winter’s tyranny.

MMMMM…
Looking at the released documents from heartland:http://fakegate.org/peter-gleicks-phishing-emails/
It is very surprising that G says “just add this one as a duplicate” on 27/1
Then the response email is missing
On 28/1 G responds to 2 people Why? Also Heartland1 (H1) responds with “Both email addresses have been added to the board directory” surely the original was already on file?
on 30/1 H1 welcomes G to the fold – surely the board member was already a part of the flock?
on 2/2 G responds to the invisible mail not the 30/1 mail.
0n 3/2 a new heartlander (H2) seems to get involved (new signature)posting 2 pdfs to G
on 4/2 G requests more info
on 6/2 someone forwards Basts budget and fundraising plans to G
0n 6/2 a couple of minutes later 4 more documents were sent

It is strange that all communications were to only the newly provided address.
It is strange that it involved 10 days and 2 Heartland people and was not discovered.

Self-confessed climate fraud Peter Gleick impersonated astronaut Harrison Schmitt to obtain authentic documents from the Heartland Institute with which to produce the fake memo in his spectacularly backfired attempt at payback for Climategate to the critics of man-made global warming.

Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute is a leading and strident voice in the global warmer movement. His spat with Apollo 17 astronaut and New Mexico senator Harrison Schmitt, and with the Heartland Institute did not start one month ago as he claims in his “confession” to deflect serious criminal and civil prosecution, but one year ago. In The Huffington Post of 8 February 2011 Gleick attacked Schmitt and Heartland for exposing that Arctic sea ice was higher in 1989: “Is this a joke? I wish. This was said by ex-astronaut and New Mexico’s energy secretary Harrison Schmitt, self-described climate denier. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong and wrong. That’ a bad dishonest no-no. Scientists destroy their reputations when they do this (since inevitably other scientists find out).” Heartland commented the same day: “Gleick has deceitfully changed the terms of the discussion. Gleick should admit the charge was false.” One year later another spat when Schmitt was among 16 scientists signing a Wall Street Journal article: “No need to panic about global warming. There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to decarbonise the world’s economy.” Gleick furiously criticised in his Forbes column the “scientists,” in inverted commas as he put them, who dared question his man-made global warming. The same day he started his impersonation of astronaut Schmitt to obtain documents from Heartland which two weeks later he confessed about. The high priest of ethics in the global warmer movement has now resigned as the American Geophysical Union ethics commissar. One year earlier he had predicted his own undoing when he warned about the destructive effect of lies on scientists.

That’s John Graham-Cumming, who chips in on Bishop Hill from time to time. The first-named author, Darrel Ince, has been around UK software as a commentator for as long as I can remember. He has banged the open source drum for many years so this is no flash in the pan for him either. As you say, good to see in Nature.

You know the inability to have a rational debate on this issue can have very serious consequences for us in many ways. Disregarding any implications for AGW itself, this lack could paralyze our political process as the sides divide into warring camps that will not communicate with each other. This can be seen in Washington today on other issues. Perhaps we can put aside the schadenfreude and reflect on what this means for all of us.

If something similar had been revealed in the Climategate emails, would people find this acceptable?

It all sounds very high-minded Tom. But as someone that believes that Peter Gleick’s descent into wrongdoing was triggered by the courtesy and niceness of Barry Woods, backed up by the integrity of Richard Betts and Tamsin Edwards, I don’t see its relevance. Some people simply can’t cope with goodness. This has to recognised as pathological and the person removed from the scene so they no longer do harm. At that point rational debate is a natural as a running stream. Without it it’s never going to happen. The world of climate science and policy has some mighty important decisions to take – and it’s not clear from the comments across the board about the Gleick incident that this has been faced.
Steve: C’mon, Richard. Gleick’s course was charted quite independently of his exchange with Tamsin. Coincidences do sometimes happen.

Jim Lakely was also a model of courtesy and niceness. In that context I thought the tone of Joe Bast’s detailed response to the fake memo yesterday was brilliant. These guys were and are playing a blinder – I hope the Koch Foundation and every other such entity take note and give some decent money to play with.

I think the combination of Barry, Richard and Tamsin was seen as particularly toxic by Gleick and his ‘peers’. Put this together with the Harrison Schmitt factor and you have a witches brew of perceived slights and setbacks. But it’s all pathological.

And there is a cold-blooded element as well. Fortunately not so cold-blooded that Gleick could see that this course of action – impersonation and almost certainly forgery – was going to be a disaster.

I think the timeline is most interesting for how fast the seven experts were in the Guardian denouncing Heartland. There is organisation – a lot of it. Keep up the good work!
Steve: enough about Tamsin and Gleick until further evidence comes in.

Do you realize how they are playing a blinder? They are unfailingly polite. They do not respond emotionally and they do not respond personally. As a result, they are greatly assisting their cause. Taking the high road and not descending into personal vilification is the winning tactic. Even if it is chosen cynically as a means of manipulation, it is still the tactic most likely to succeed. If the opponent responds otherwise then this only reinforces the advantage of the principled approach.

Ran into my friend who is an engineer. He heard about fakegate on the radio, wanted to know if I knew about it. I said yes. He said he couldn’t believe it. A scientist has to be 100% honest all the time or it is no good. He was just shaking his head.
Forgot to ask where he heard it.

Perhaps I’ve missed something, but given that the Heartland Inst. had invited Gleick to speak on Jan 13th, and given the context of the invitations, and Gleick’s refusal, doesn’t it seem reasonable to accept that his name must have been coming up a fair bit among members of the HI board in the last few weeks in January? It doesn’t seem to me that the reference to Gleick in the doubtful memo is a key fact in establishing the origin of the memo.

The consensus that the /style/ of the memo identifies Gleick as its author seems to me to be unreliable. We often think that this kind of analysis is straightforward, because we all know how to use language (don’t we?). We’re much happier to admit we don’t /get/ statistics. But any adequately trained student of language or literature should be able to tell you that linguistic analysis and stylistic ‘fingerprinting’ are seriously tricky matters, full of pitfalls. Analysis of written style is what I do for a living. No statistician will be surprised to here that in my line of work the road to hell is paved with false positives. Sloppy usage is an entirely unremarkable feature of official memos, internet blogs, and academic emails alike. Commas won’t do it for you. Even the phrase ‘anti-climate’ is no identifying mark (unless used consistently) when you can make it by accidental omission, or pick it up after unthinkingly from someone (even an opponent) whose words you’ve been reading recently. You need more than this to make a confident attribution, if you want to get beyond the pleasure of wishful thinking. Anomalies in the /factual/ content of such an official memo are an entirely different and much more significant matter.
Steve: you’re overlooking “means, motive and opportunity”, which Gleick had. The author of the fake memo had to be in possession of the actual documents. “Opportunity” limits the population to Gleick and the Heartland directors (and maybe a few senior Heartland staffers.) The “fiber” evidence is additional.

Obviously, a police investigation ought to examine Gleick’s computers and computers that he might have used. Police seized the UEA server almost immediately, but they don’t seem to have done anything with Gleick’s.

Good point. And yet I am quite certain he is the author, there being essentially no evidence that anyone else wrote it, versus a pile of evidence consistent with the theory that he wrote it. I do not, of course, impose the same standards of proof on myself as would be required in criminal court.

Well, yes indeed: but that only makes sense if it has already been decided that the document is fake, independently of the rather weak stylistic ‘data’. Which brings the whole thing back to the most significant of the two factual anomalies in the memo: the note on the 2011 donation from the Kock Foundation which mistakenly refers to the contribution of $200,000 projected or promised for 2012.

This is the precisely thing I don’t understand. The entire argument for the document having been faked by Gleick is actually predicated on the assumption (which you’re developing above) that Gleick is unbelievably stupid. The only other plausible assumption that the error is actually a comparatively small one in a memo that doesn’t really contain any actual information not available in the other documents. But Ockham’s razor might not be that helpful here.

The Kock link is a big deal for anyone with an intellectual stake in the dissemination of those papers. If a faker was trying to draw attention to it, then he can’t hit a fish in a barrel. He’s irredeemably dumb. The question is, is this a fair assessment of Gleick? One may not agree with him, or like his position, and of course there are plenty of successful people (academics, businessmen, politicians) out there who are simply not very clever. But a basic academic training should at least provide the basis for a better piece of fakery than this. The one thing academics can usually manage is to produce internally consistent documents. And I would argue that someone faking a document such as the memo is much more likely to over-correct than to mess up one of the key points on which we must assumed they were focussed. If Gleick did this, you’re right: he’s a dumb-ass. But it smells pretty fishy to me.

[…] Gleicks possible motives? Is this the editorial which pushed him over the edge. Gleick joins another association. Share this:FacebookStumbleUponRedditTwitterEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this […]